Fresno Planning Commission Meeting – Central Southeast Area Specific Plan and Substantial Evidence Workshop – 2026-02-05

The Fresno Planning Commission met on 2026-02-05 per the meeting metadata; the written minutes are dated Wednesday, February 4, 2026, at 6:00 PM, a discrepancy noted here. Chair Peter Vang called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m. Five commissioners were present (Vang, Bray, Lyday, Calandra, Shergill); Commissioners Criner and Diaz were absent. The Commission recommended approval of the Central Southeast Area Specific Plan and related environmental actions to the City Council, and received a workshop on substantial evidence.

Continued Matter: Central Southeast Area Specific Plan (ID 26-125)

• Sophia Pagoulatos of the Planning and Development Department presented the plan, which covers 2,067 acres between Downtown Fresno and Sunnyside, with a population of about 31,000 and about 9,500 homes. The Commission previously recommended approval in May 2023; minor updates were made and the Mitigated Negative Declaration was recirculated to remove reliance on the General Plan programmatic EIR.
• Outreach from 2018–2021 included a 15-member steering committee, stakeholder meetings, workshops, surveys, mailings, and an engagement toolkit. Staff cited an estimated 600 survey responses and roughly 400 additional participants. The Airport Land Use Commission found the plan consistent in 2023 on a 7-0 vote, and Council District 5's project review committee recommended approval on June 12, 2023.
• The plan proposes land use changes on about 119 acres (less than 6% of the plan area), mostly to increase residential capacity and support mixed-use corridors, and adds approximately 2,938 units of additional housing capacity. It also proposes repealing the Roosevelt Community Plan (about 15,721 acres) and the Butler/Willow Specific Plan (about 563 acres), adopting the Central Southeast Area Specific Plan, amending the General Plan land use map, and rezoning approximately 119 acres.
• The public comment period for the recirculated Mitigated Negative Declaration ran December 19, 2025 to January 19, 2026; six comment letters were received. Staff's environmental consultant concluded that no further environmental analysis was required. Three housing element sites in the plan area are affected, with a combined capacity of 232 dwelling units; the proposed changes add 489 units of lower-income capacity, reduce moderate-income capacity by 4 units, and reduce above-market capacity by 218 units.
• Five property owners requested to retain their existing General Plan land use designations rather than the plan's proposed designations. Staff reported these requests would reduce the plan's housing capacity surplus by about 147 units, but the plan would still add housing capacity. The environmental consultant had not yet determined whether those requests fall within the scope of the environmental document.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Dirk Cushell, on behalf of the Gandulia family, spoke in support. He said the family has owned or worked their 9.5-acre property near Chestnut and Florence for more than 80 years and asked that it be designated urban neighborhood, which he said staff and the advisory committee supported.
• Chris Hernandez, representing Richard Hernandez, spoke in support but with questions. He described a roughly 15-acre property with a horticultural nursery (Maple Evener Nursery) operating since 1969, and asked how rezoning would affect the business and what notifications would follow.
• An unidentified speaker opposed the plan, questioning where and when outreach meetings occurred and the ratio of staff to community attendees. The speaker asserted Fresno is over 14,000 units behind on affordable housing, cited a 48% rise in homelessness and $700 million in funding, and called for a pause and a restart with more community involvement.
• A second unidentified speaker opposed the plan, arguing the process was rushed, notification was inadequate, and the environmental review was incomplete. The speaker said there was "no rush" and objected to meeting procedures.
• Staff responded that existing businesses would be grandfathered, that a nursery/garden center would be a legal use under the proposed zoning, that outreach documentation and sign-in sheets could be made available, and that the plan increases residential capacity by 2,938 units.

Commission Questions and Action

• Commissioners asked about the Sunnyside Property Owner Association's letter concerning scenic corridor and olive trees; staff said the plan includes no street widening. Commissioners also asked about continuation of legal nonconforming uses and housing capacity; staff confirmed such uses can continue and the plan adds 2,938 units of capacity.
• Vice Chair Bray moved to forward the plan to the City Council while leaving an option for the five property owner requests to be granted if they are determined to be within the scope of the additional environmental assessment. Commissioner Calandra seconded. Staff indicated the scope determination was anticipated to be completed before the City Council meeting. The motion carried 5-0: Ayes – Vang, Bray, Lyday, Calandra, Shergill; Absent – Criner, Diaz.

Workshop: Substantial Evidence (ID 26-140)

• Planning staff (Israel Trejo and Phillip Siegrist) presented a training workshop on substantial evidence under CEQA and the Development Code.
• They explained that findings, especially findings modifying staff recommendations, must be supported by facts, technical reports, expert testimony, and information in the record. Substantial evidence was distinguished from argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion, and social or economic concerns not tied to physical environmental impacts.
• The workshop covered examples involving parking, traffic, scenic vistas, lighting, and conditional use permit findings. Commissioners asked about how to weigh conflicting testimony and how code complaints relate to project-specific decisions.
• Best practices included avoiding ex parte communications, separating fact from opinion, articulating findings on the record, not rushing decisions, and ensuring modifications are linked to identifiable evidence. No vote was taken.

Unscheduled Oral Communications

• A speaker objected to the Commission's handling of interruptions, said the public should not be silenced in a public building, and requested a visible timing system because the speaker could not see the podium lights.
• A speaker identifying as Brunette with HEAT raised concerns about Southwest Fresno planning, alleging a roundabout at Pottle and Martin Luther King was proposed without proper community notification and after federal funds had already been received. The speaker opposed the roundabout and said the community was pursuing legal action against the city.
• A third speaker echoed concerns about federal funding requirements, public notification, and environmental review, and urged the Commission not to feel pressured to approve items.

Key Outcomes

• The Planning Commission voted 5-0 (with Criner and Diaz absent) to recommend approval to the City Council of the Central Southeast Area Specific Plan package: adoption of the recirculated Mitigated Negative Declaration, repeal of the Roosevelt Community Plan and Butler/Willow Specific Plan, adoption of the Central Southeast Area Specific Plan, amendment of the General Plan land use map, and rezoning of approximately 119 acres, with an option to incorporate five property owner requests if found within the scope of the environmental review.
• The substantial evidence workshop was informational; no action was taken.
• The meeting was adjourned at 7:38 p.m. according to the minutes.